Updates on cases, laws, and other topics of interest to local governments

Subscribe by Email

Enter your Email:
Preview | Powered by FeedBlitz

Subscribe in a Reader

Follow Municipal Minute on Twitter


Blog comments do not reflect the views or opinions of the Author or Ancel Glink. Some of the content may be considered attorney advertising material under the applicable rules of certain states. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Please read our full disclaimer

Monday, December 16, 2019

Pension Board Did Not Abuse Discretion in Denying City's Petition to Intervene

An Illinois appellate court recently upheld a Pension Board's denial of a City's petition to intervene in a disability hearing in City of Peoria v. Firefighters Pension Fund, 2019 IL App (3d) 190069.

A City firefighter applied for a line of duty disability pension from the Firefighters' Pension fund. He alleged that he was injured during a training exercise at the City's fire training academy. The Pension Fund scheduled a hearing on the application, and the City filed a petition to intervene claiming it had an interest in the proceeding because a line of duty disability pension would impact the firefighter's claims and the City's liability under the Public Safety Employee Benefits Act (PSEBA). The Pension Board denied the City's petition to intervene, and then voted to award a line of duty disability pension to the firefighter by a 3-2 vote.

The City subsequently petitioned the Pension Board for permission to supplement the medical record, which was granted. The Pension Board heard additional evidence, including supplemental medical opinions, and voted a second time to grant the line of duty pension.

The City then filed a lawsuit in administrative review to challenge the Pension Board's decision. After the City's case was dismissed, the City then appealed.

On appeal, the appellate court first determined that the Pension Board has discretion to determine whether to allow the City to intervene in its proceedings, and that the City's interest in overseeing the expenditure of pension funds does not mandate the City's participation in the Pension Board's hearing process. In this case, the court did not find any abuse of discretion by the Pension Board in denying the City's petition to intervene.

Second, the appellate court acknowledged that although there were contrary opinions submitted in the proceeding, there was sufficient evidence to support the Pension Board's decision to award the line of duty pension.


Post a Comment